Which enemy do you chose?

[Turrosh Mak]

I normally pick the weakest or the closest who doesn't have feudalism yet. My goal is promotions, great leaders and territory on the cheap.

[Harovan]

The one that yields the best gain in a minimum of time, as war is expensive. That's usually either the weakest or the closest, almost never the strongest.

[Rhothaerill]

I would also add the caveat of attacking the civ that is most likely to be stronger later on (assuming they are more or less equal). For example in AU209 I attacked Carthage early before galleys came about and let the Ottomans get big. Then they killed me. Now I'm in the middle of a retry of it and both the Ottomans and Carthage are dust as we speak.

[Theseus]

Probably the strongest, for me.

AI civs are the old aphorism: The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Much like Rhothy, I want to take down the threats, until I am in control of the interactions of all. Also, pulling in other AI civs into gangbangs is easier this way.

As a sidenote, that will also prolly net me the most tech, gold, cities, etc.

[fanes7]

the strongest ( Mongol Celt Aztc ) and the most fast develop CIV ( Babylon and Greece ) and any science CIV

[G'Kar]

As a general rule I attack the strongest, there's more to gain. But of course it depends on the relative strength of the enemy armies. 14 knights isn't necessarily overwhelming power, and you should usually start wars when you have overwhelming power.

So, if you are stronger than both I would attack the strongest of the two AIs. But if you are weaker than the strongest AI you would do well to attack the weaker one.

[Theseus]

Defcon5, I agree, but I am assuming 14 Knights towards the beginning of their strength, not the end.

14 Knights? Against what, Spears or Muskets?

Buh-bye.

[Master Zen]

It's all relative. Is it just stronger than you or absolutely the strongest? I once attacked the most powerful (by far) civ in the game on emperor with knights. Took me 20 turns to wipe them out but it was possible. They also got gunpowder mid-way into the war which made it more difficult fortunately they found some severe financial difficulties in upgrading and soon after got their source of saltpeter captured.

What I would suggest is: try and see which is the strongest yet geo-strategically weakest. I.e. the one which can get his resources taken out. If he has iron on the coast or close to it for example, they would make a fine target. Remember that strenght changes thoughout the conflict. A weak civ which gets its GA triggered suddenly might get very powerful (happened in my last emperor game where the Zulus came at me with swarms of swordsmen), or a mighty nation might get neutered by precise attacks like resource-denial.

[georges bonbon]

The closest.

And take a few (2-4) cities to weaken the AI and grow without investing in settlers.

Even if the closest enemy is strong, he will settle for peace rapidly after taking 2 of his cities.

[Jethro83]

In the early game, I'll typically take on whoever is closest to my capital. Later on, when most civs are firmly established with borders that actually start resembling empires, I'll hit the strongest. Mid-industrial to modern era, if a civ on the other side of the continent is getting way too big and ploughing through their neighbours, I will try and intervene against them (especially if they are trying to conquer an ally I am trading resources with).

[eris]

I voted for "Weakest". At the time of newly upgraded Knights, I am usually looking for cheap territory, so that I can be become bigger and stronger. I figure "closest" is not relevant because REXing has usually defined borders by then and my attack will always be against a contiguous Civ. If I absorb the weakest like some sort of agressive amoeba, I might become the new strongest. (Especially if Palace or FP placement makes those new cities productive quickly.) If I don't become the strongest, then I will work on making the strongest the target of some sort of alliance so that the strongest becomes the ex-strongest as soon as possible.

Of course, all this will easily change if conditions warrant. Being predictable is not my strongest personality trait, and, in military matters, it is not a virtue. Many a military leader has learned that lesson the hard way. Sometimes it is the very last lesson they have time for in their suddenly shortened lifespans.

[ChrisiusMaximus]

Strongest and/or biggest

[Arrian]

I'll go after whichever civ which offers:

1) most gain for least cost
2) and I'm reasonably sure I can beat them

"Most gain" includes lots of things: productive cities (due to proximity to palace/FP), luxuries, resources, chances of getting leaders (say I've got a bunch of elite units lying around... they shouldn't be LYING AROUND!!! So, pick a weakling and take some shots).

So, if taking down the strongest civ offers great gains, and I think I can do it, there ya go. If I can get the same gains from whacking 2 weaklings, and expend less effort in so doing, I may do that instead.

-Arrian

[TheArsenal]

Stack of 14 knights? Tough call. Answering this question in a vacuum, I am going attack whichever civ leaves me in a better geographical position to commence Operation Cavalry Freedom which will come later. As a rule, I like to reduce the number of borders I share with the AI., down to a single front if possible.

[Arrian]

Hmm, I didn't even notice the "14 knights" part. Depending on map size and the level of play, 14 knights isn't very much.

I'm most familiar with Monarch, and standard maps. 14 knights in those circumstances means either a slow, careful war against a medium-sized foe, or a wipeout of a weakling civ. Going up against a strong civ with only 14 knights probably isn't a smart play.

-Arrian